RESPONSE TO MAJOR OIL SPILL—TANK BARGE ST. THOMAS

1987 ◽  
Vol 1987 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-58
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Tanos ◽  
Tony E. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
Federal Response ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACT In early February 1986 the U.S. tank barge St. Thomas struck a submerged object in Charlotte Amalie harbor, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Damage to the barge's number 1 starboard cargo tank resulted in the loss of an estimated 500 barrels of No. 6 fuel oil. Later, an additional 100 barrels were lost when temporary patching of the tank let go. These two spills are believed to be the largest that have affected the U.S. Virgin Islands. When the operators of the barge failed to initiate an appropriate response to remove the oil, the Coast Guard on-scene coordinator initiated a federal response under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Over the next month the OSC coordinated the cleanup of this oil which had pocketed around the harbor. Total costs for the cleanup exceeded $1.9 million. No long-term environmental damage is believed to have occurred.

STATUTORY CRITERIA: COAST GUARD PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, SECTION 311(b)

1981 ◽  
Vol 1981 (1) ◽  
pp. 595-600
Author(s):  
Steven J. Delaney
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Present State ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substance ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Water Pollution Control ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Civil Penalty

ABSTRACT This paper discusses those particular statutory criteria that determine whether a civil penalty will be assessed by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) for an alleged discharge of oil or a hazardous substance. Under Section 311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, the USCG is responsible for assessing a monetary civil penalty when a prohibited quantity of oil/has been discharged into jurisdictional waters. Since 1970, there have been significant statutory, regulatory, and policy changes that have affected the exercise of this USCG responsibility. These changes are explained in such a way that the reader may determine the present state of this particular enforcement program, as viewed by the USCG and the courts. The principal inquiries addressed in this paper are:Has there been a violation?Is a particular party liable to the assessment of a civil penalty?What factors affect the size of the penalty that may be assessed?

CLEANUP OF THE ABANDONED BUNKER BARGES1

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 (1) ◽  
pp. 383-388
Author(s):  
LTJG Edward L. Bock ◽  
Dennis J. McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Pollution Control ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Hazardous Substances ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Hampton Roads ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
Oily Waste ◽  
Marine Safety ◽  
Abandoned Vessels

ABSTRACT An estimated 1300 abandoned vessels are decaying on U.S. waterways. An unknown number of these vessels contain oil or hazardous substances and pose a substantial threat of discharge into the environment. Historically, the Coast Guard has responded to environmentally harmful oil and hazardous material spills from abandoned vessels after they occur, sometimes spending millions of unrecoverable dollars in cleanup and disposal costs. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended gives the Coast Guard jurisdiction to mitigate a “substantial threat of discharge” of oil or hazardous substances into the water. Responding to a substantial threat of discharge prevents environmental damage, reduces the number of medium or major spills, and costs substantially less than large shoreline or open water cleanups. Recently, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office (MSO) Hampton Roads initiated the first federal removal action in response to a substantial threat posed by abandoned barges; the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was used to remove 691,000 gallons of oily waste and to clean and render gas-free the abandoned tank barges Bunker Delaware, Bunker 1000, and VTL-1.

Virginia's Water Quality Control Program for Loggers

1977 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
C. M. Pennock
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Water Quality Control ◽  
Quality Control Program ◽  
Voluntary Compliance ◽  
Logging Industry ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
Probable Impact

Abstract In 1976 a series of meetings was held throughout Virginia for the purpose of informing loggers about the federal Water Pollution Control Act and the probable impact on the logging industry. Emphasis was placed on voluntary compliance with good management practices to avoid regulatory programs. Increased logging road stabilization is the first tangible result.

“You Alone Have the Answer”: Lake Erie and Federal Water Pollution Control Policy, 1960–1972

1996 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-469
Author(s):  
Terence Kehoe
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Lake Erie ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Control Policy ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Sources Of Pollution ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
The 1960S

Prior to the 1960s, state governments retained primary responsibility for the regulation of water pollution. State officials emphasized voluntarism and close, informal cooperation between regulators and representatives from the major industrial and municipal sources of pollution. During the 1960s and early 1970s, growing dissatisfaction with state pollution control performance in Congress and at the local level acted as the driving force behind the gradual federal preemption of state authority. In the Lake Erie Basin, local advocates of tougher and more effective water pollution regulation looked to the federal government for relief and made common cause with sympathetic members of Congress.

Applying the Clean Water Law to Southeast Forestry

1978 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 74-77
Author(s):  
August J. Dornbusch ◽  
Albert B. Herndon
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Water Quality ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Water Law ◽  
Clean Water ◽  
Voluntary Programs ◽  
Reporting Systems ◽  
Federal Water Pollution Control ◽  
Key Factor

Abstract Control of any water pollution from forest management is required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500). Voluntary programs are acceptable in the Southeast. Plans developed under Section 208 of the Act must include best land management practices, priorities, implementation schedules, evaluation programs and reporting systems. A key factor is the assessment of types and locations of any water quality problems. Failure of voluntary plans after trial for a number of years may require regulatory approaches to be taken.

Water Pollution Control in Developing Areas – Training and Education

1982 ◽  
Vol 14 (9-11) ◽  
pp. 1325-1335
Author(s):  
K Pöppinghaus
Keyword(s):  
Water Pollution ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Further Education ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Training And Education ◽  
Water Pollution Control

In training and further education in water pollution control areas in developing countries, the measures for substantial construction must be carried out as a long term strategy in the developing country and the measures for the elimination of acute emergencies as a short term strdzegy as well in the developing country and as in the donating countries. Programmes and solutions for the elimination of the critical stage of training and for further education are derived from and presented in an analysis of the state of training and further education. The aspects of training within the targets of Water Decade are especially discussed. The bulk of aid in training and further education made by international organizations and by the Federal Republic of Germany is illustrated. The demands on the training of engineers and the training possibilities are derived.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document